lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.2-incubating-RC1
Date Fri, 25 Feb 2011 09:25:38 GMT
On 2011-02-23, Stefan Bodewig wrote:

> Not only cosmetic:

> * The NOTICE file contains a bad copyright year and doesn't talk about
>   Lucene.NET at all.  Make that Lucene.NET rather than Lucene and
>   2006-2011.

> * LICENSE talks about src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/UnicodeUtil.java
>   and src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/ArrayUtil.java that certainly
>   don't exist while there are files with different names that the
>   corresponding license entry applies to.

> * Quite a few files that could contain the ASF license don't.
>   I've run RAT[1] over the distribution archives and the results are
>   here <http://people.apache.org/~bodewig/Lucene.NET/>

>   I dont think the .txt files need a license, but the .html, .cs, .xml
>   (at least the ones that are not generated), .config, .nunit and
>   .resources files can and should.  One could even argue the .sln and
>   .c[ds]proj files should (the build.xml or pom.xml files of Java
>   projects also do).

> * some snowball files need to get relicensed under Apache Software
>   License 2.0 (the are still at 1.1).

These are so straight forward to fix that even I can do it ;-)

Unless anybody yells I'll put some time aside today to create a patch
that fixes the issues in trunk and should hopefully be easy to merge to
the 2.9.2 tag/branch and will attach it to LOCENENET-381.

Stefan

Mime
View raw message